Crissen v. Gupta
| Decision Date | 07 June 2013 |
| Docket Number | 2:12-cv-00355-JMS-WGH |
| Parties | JOSHUA B. CRISSEN, Plaintiff, v. VINOD C. GUPTA, SATYABALA V. GUPTA, and WIPER CORPORATION, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
Presently pending before the Court are: (1) Defendant Satyabala V. Gupta's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint, [dkt. 23]; and (2) a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint filed by Defendants Vinod C. Gupta, Satyabala V. Gupta, and Wiper Corporation ("Wiper") (collectively, "Defendants"), [dkt. 26].
Plaintiff Joshua Crissen is an individual residing in Bloomfield, Indiana. [Dkt. 1 at 3, ¶ 6.] Defendants Vinod Gupta and Satyabala Gupta are husband and wife, and reside in Boca Raton, Florida. [Id. at 3, ¶¶ 7-8.] Mr. and Ms. Gupta are the only directors and officers of Wiper, a Florida corporation. [Id. at 3, ¶ 9.] Mr. Crissen alleges that "[Wiper] or its nominees have participated in tax sales in Indiana from at least 2002 through 2010." [Id.]
Mr. Crissen describes the tax sale process in Indiana in the following way: In Indiana, when a real property owner fails to pay property taxes, the property can be sold at a tax sale to satisfy the delinquent taxes pursuant to Ind. Code § 6-1.1-24, et seq. [Id. at 4, ¶ 10.] The processbegins when each county auditor publishes a list of delinquent real estate parcels in area newspapers, which gives notice that the county auditor and treasurer will apply for court judgments against delinquent real estate and for orders to sell those judgments at public auction. [Id. at 4, ¶ 12.] After the court issues the requested judgments and orders, the county auditor will send a notice of the sale by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the last address of the property owner on the date the tax sale list is certified ("Notice of Sale"). [Id. at 4, ¶ 13.]
At the tax sale, the county treasurer sells the real property, subject to a right of redemption, to the highest bidder at public auction. [Id. at 4, ¶ 14.] An Indiana statute provides the minimum price for which the real property can be sold ("Minimum Price"), factoring in the taxes due and owing, all penalties owed, costs incurred by the county due to the sale, unpaid costs due from any prior tax sales, and other reasonable expenses of collection. [Id. at 4-5, ¶ 15.] When a bid equals at least the Minimum Price, the purchaser receives a certificate of sale and acquires a lien against the property in the amount paid. [Id. at 5, ¶ 16.] When no bid equals at least the Minimum Price, the county executive receives a certificate of sale and acquires a lien in the amount of the Minimum Price. [Id. at 5, ¶ 17.] The county executive can then decide to sell its certificate of sale at a public auction to the highest bidder for an amount less than the Minimum Price. [Id. at 5, ¶ 18.] The purchaser of a certificate of sale must give notice ("Notice of Redemption") by sending a copy of the Notice of Redemption by certified mail to the owner of record at the time of the sale and any person with a substantial property interest of public record in the real property. [Id. at 6, ¶ 20.] The Notice of Redemption must be sent no later than nine months after the date of the tax sale or ninety days after the date of the Commissioner's Sale. [Id. at 6, ¶ 21.]
Any person may redeem real property sold at a tax sale or Commissioner's Sale by paying the amount required for redemption before the expiration of the redemption period, which is one year after the date of sale. [Id. at 6, ¶ 22.] The amount of money required for redemption of the real property ("Redemption Amount") is set by Indiana statute. [Id. at 6-7, ¶ 23.] If the property is certified before redemption, the attorneys' fees and costs of giving notice ("Notify Costs") and the costs of a title search or of examining and updating the abstract of title for the real property that were incurred and paid by the purchaser ("Title Costs") are part of the Redemption Amount. [Id.] The purchaser of a certificate of sale certifies that he or she incurred and paid the Notify Costs and the Title Costs by completing, signing, and providing the county auditor with a Certification. [Id. at 7, ¶ 24.] The Notice of Redemption must set forth the components of the Redemption Amount, including the amounts owed for Notify Costs and Title Costs. [Id. at 7, ¶ 26.]
Mr. Crissen owns property in Greene County, Indiana (the "Property"). [Id. at 7, ¶ 29.] After property taxes on the Property became delinquent, the Greene County auditor and treasurer applied for a judgment against the Property and an order to sell the judgment at public auction. [Id. at 7-8, ¶ 30.] On October 9, 2009, after the requested judgment and order were entered, the Greene County treasurer offered the Property for sale, subject to a right of redemption, for a Minimum Price of $2,118.60. [Id. at 8, ¶ 31.] Mr. Gupta was the highest bidder with a bid of $8,000, and the Greene County auditor issued a certificate of sale ("Tax Sale Certificate") that same day. [Id. at 8, ¶¶ 32-33.]
On November 13, 2009, Mr. Gupta provided a signed Certification to the Greene County auditor certifying that he had incurred and paid $350 in Notify Costs and $150 in Title Costsrelating to the Property. [Id. at 8, ¶ 34.] Thereafter, Mr. Gupta (or someone acting on his behalf) sent Mr. Crissen a Notice of Redemption detailing the components of the Redemption Amount, including the Notify Costs and Title Costs. [Id. at 8, ¶ 35.] On February 8, 2010, the Property was redeemed by Mr. Crissen for a Redemption Amount of $3,027.04. [Id. at 8, ¶ 36.]
Mr. Crissen alleges that Mr. and Ms. Gupta and Wiper "conspired to and did devise a scheme to defraud people seeking to redeem real property sold at the tax sales and Commissioner's Sales by submitting fraudulent Certifications, which certified they incurred and paid the Notify Costs and Title Costs, when upon information and belief, they neither incurred nor paid the Notify Costs or Title Costs." [Id. at 8, ¶ 37.] Specifically, Mr. Crissen alleges that from at least 2002 through the present, Defendants provided the county auditor with over 2,700 Certificates that were redeemed by individuals which were false because they certified that Defendants incurred and paid Notify Costs and/or Title Costs when they had not done so. [Id. at 8-9, ¶ 38.] Mr. Crissen attaches a list of each purchase involving an allegedly false Certificate to his Complaint. [Dkt. 1-2.] Mr. Crissen alleges that the Notify Costs Defendants certified that they paid (but actually did not) total over $1,000,000, and the Title Costs Defendants certified that they paid (but actually did not) total over $612,000. [Dkt. 1 at 9, ¶ 42.]
Mr. Crissen seeks to represent a class of:
All individuals and business entities who redeemed a tract or real property purchased at Indiana tax and/or Commissioner's sales by [Mr. Gupta], [Ms. Gupta] and/or [Wiper] (or by a nominee), where the redemption amounts were artificially inflated because [Mr. Gupta], [Ms. Gupta] and/or [Wiper] certified to Indiana county auditors they had incurred and/or paid statutory notification and/or title costs which Defendants had not incurred or paid.
Mr. Crissen asserts the following claims: (1) Substantive Racketeering under Federal RICO, [id. at 12-15, ¶¶ 60-73]; (2) Racketeering Conspiracy under Federal RICO, [id. at 15-16, ¶¶ 74-77]; (3) Substantive Racketeering under Indiana RICO, [id. at 16-18, ¶¶ 78-90]; (4) Racketeering Conspiracy under Indiana RICO, [id. at 19-20, ¶¶ 91-94]; (5) Relief under the Indiana Crime Victims Act, [id. at 20-21, ¶¶ 95-102]; (6) Fraud, [id. at 21-22, ¶¶ 103-113]; (7) Money Had and Received, [id. at 22-23, ¶¶ 114-117]; and (8) Unjust Enrichment, [id. at 23-24, ¶¶ 118-121]. He seeks actual and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. [Id. at 24.]
Ms. Gupta has moved to dismiss Mr. Crissen's Complaint on two grounds: (1) that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over her; and (2) in the alternative, that Mr. Crissen has failed to plead a claim against her upon which relief can be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and has not pled his claims against her with the particularity required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Because of its potentially dispositive nature, the Court will first address Ms. Gupta's argument that the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over her.
Although a complaint does not need to include facts alleging personal jurisdiction, once a defendant moves to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) - as Ms. Gupta has done here - the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the existence of personal jurisdiction. Purdue Research Found. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773, 782 (7th Cir. 2003); see also Claus v. Mize, 317 F.3d 725, 727 (7th Cir. 2003) (). When the Court decides a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on the parties' written submissions only, and without an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff "need only make out a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction" and "isentitled to the resolution in its favor of all disputes concerning relevant facts presented in the record." Id. (internal citations omitted).
A court must have either general personal jurisdiction, specific personal jurisdiction, or jurisdiction by operation of a federal statute. For general and personal jurisdiction, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution requires that before a state may exercise jurisdiction over a defendant, the defendant must have had certain "minimum contacts" with the state "such that the maintenance of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial